Compliance Radar
Who was sanctioned, and for what?
Fines, court rulings and incidents from Europe and North America: 756 cases from 32 jurisdictions, each with an official source and checked against that source before publication. Filter by country, area of law and sector. Click a chart to drill down one level.
Click a bar to drill down one level.
Where?
by regionAll jurisdictions
What for?
by topicWho?
by sectorAll sectors
- Financial services and insurance €17.5m 89 % · 4 cases
- Healthcare €1.26m 6 % · 1 case
- Telecoms, IT and software €626,868 3 % · 1 case
- Retail and e-commerce €127,641 1 % · 1 case
- Other €82,264 0 % · 3 cases
- Food and agriculture €40,676 0 % · 2 cases
- Public sector €27,200 0 % · 6 cases
- Transport, logistics and shipping €8,222 0 % · 1 case
- Energy and utilities €2,000 0 % · 1 case
When?
per quarter, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| Q3 2023 | 0 | — |
| Q4 2023 | 0 | — |
| Q1 2024 | 2 | €16.5m |
| Q2 2024 | 0 | — |
| Q3 2024 | 6 | €2.85m |
| Q4 2024 | 1 | €2,000 |
| Q1 2025 | 2 | €2,200 |
| Q2 2025 | 2 | €12,000 |
| Q3 2025 | 1 | €6,000 |
| Q4 2025 | 1 | €23,018 |
| Q1 2026 | 0 | — |
| Q2 2026 | 3 | €209,905 |
| Q3 2026 | 2 | €8,222 |
20 cases
16 Jul 2026 Royal Mail Group LtdTribunal: Royal Mail subjected whistleblower to detriment – £6,978 compensation €8,222
The Employment Tribunal in Manchester found that the claimant had been subjected to detriment because of a protected disclosure and awarded her the agreed amount of £6,978.20. The claims for disability discrimination and constructive dismissal were dismissed.
Large organisations, too, must ensure that whistleblowers do not suffer disadvantages in their day-to-day work.
How managers handle internal reports
- Authority / court
- Employment Tribunal
- Area of law
- Whistleblower protection · Retaliation against whistleblowers
- Legal basis
- Employment Rights Act 1996, s. 47B (Benachteiligung wegen geschützter Offenlegung)
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Transport, logistics and shipping
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Published
- 7 Sep 2026
Original amount 6,978.2 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 Jul 2026.
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
8 Jul 2026 Hutchison Technologies LtdTribunal: Hutchison Technologies dismissed employee after she raised holiday pay concerns Other
An employee of the Dundee-based electrical services provider for gyms (around 140 employees) had pointed out that the technicians' holiday pay was being calculated incorrectly; a few days later her home working arrangement was withdrawn, and on 11 June 2025 she was dismissed. The Employment Tribunal upheld her claims for automatically unfair dismissal (s. 103A) and detriment (s. 47B); compensation will be decided separately.
Employers who worsen working conditions shortly after a disclosure must be able to prove a documented reason unrelated to the disclosure.
How managers handle internal reports
- Authority / court
- Employment Tribunal
- Area of law
- Whistleblower protection · Retaliation against whistleblowers
- Legal basis
- Employment Rights Act 1996, ss. 43B, 47B, 103A
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Other
- Employees
- 50 to 249
- Published
- 23 Jul 2026
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
3 Jun 2026 Sonus Public Relations LtdTribunal: PR agency Sonus must pay £71,052 after subjecting whistleblower to detriment €82,264
The PR agency, which did not appear, lost on all claims: detriment on grounds of whistleblowing (£20,000 for injury to feelings), wrongful termination without notice pay (£3,547.60) and constructive unfair dismissal (basic and compensatory award including a 25 % ACAS uplift). A total of £71,051.82 was awarded.
Employers who do not take part in the proceedings risk, in addition to whistleblower compensation, an uplift for failing to follow the ACAS Code of Practice.
How managers handle internal reports
- Authority / court
- Employment Tribunal
- Area of law
- Whistleblower protection · Retaliation against whistleblowers
- Legal basis
- Employment Rights Act 1996, s. 47B (Benachteiligung wegen geschützter Offenlegung); konstruktive unfaire Kündigung; wrongful dismissal
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Other
- Published
- 22 Jul 2026
Original amount 71,051.82 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 3 Jun 2026.
- R Ashwell v Sonus Public Relations Ltd: 2404668/2024 Court decision
- R Ashwell v Sonus Public Relations Ltd: 2404668/2024 – Urteil (PDF) Court decision
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
22 May 2026 Foot Locker, Inc.SEC: Foot Locker pays 148,000 US dollars over award waivers in separation agreements €127,641
From July 2020 to June 2024, around 148 departing employees – including managers and staff from finance, legal and supply chain – signed separation agreements containing a waiver of SEC whistleblower awards. Foot Locker had itself phased out the clause from March 2024 but had not amended all templates; the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) imposed 148,000 US dollars.
When cleaning up clauses, all contract templates must be covered – a single forgotten template is enough for a violation.
Whistleblower protection in contract templates (HR/Legal)
- Authority / court
- U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
- Area of law
- Whistleblower protection · Retaliation against whistleblowers
- Legal basis
- Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 21F-17(a)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Mitigating circumstances
- Clause phased out before contact by the SEC; cooperation and prompt remediation
- Published
- 22 May 2026
Original amount 148,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 22 May 2026.
- In the Matter of Foot Locker, Inc., Release No. 34-105542 Decision of an authority
- SEC Whistleblower Protections – Enforcement Actions Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
19 May 2026 Jusan Technologies LtdTribunal: Jusan Technologies and CEO liable for withheld 600,000 US dollars Other
In August 2023, an employee had raised concerns about a possible diversion of funds earmarked for charitable purposes for self-enrichment and about breaches of duty by the CEO. The London South Employment Tribunal found that the company and its CEO personally had withheld from him, for that reason, a payment of 600,000 US dollars owed at the end of his contract (s. 47B (1) and (1A)); compensation will be determined separately.
In the United Kingdom, managers are personally liable if they subject whistleblowers to detriment – for example by withholding contractual payments.
How managers handle internal reports
- Authority / court
- Employment Tribunal
- Area of law
- Whistleblower protection · Retaliation against whistleblowers
- Legal basis
- Employment Rights Act 1996, ss. 43B, 43C, 43G, 47B(1) und (1A)
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Liability of senior managers
- The CEO (referred to in the judgment as the ‘controlling mind’) is personally liable under s. 47B(1A) ERA 1996 (Employment Rights Act 1996).
- Published
- 10 Jul 2026
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
22 Oct 2025 Gate GourmetTribunal: Gate Gourmet files no response – £20,000 to whistleblower €23,018
Because Gate Gourmet failed to file a response to the claim despite repeated requests, the Manchester Employment Tribunal found that there had been detriment on grounds of a protected disclosure and in January 2026 awarded £15,000 for loss of earnings and £5,000 for injury to feelings. An application for reconsideration, based on an email inbox that was no longer monitored, was refused.
Correspondence from authorities and courts must go to monitored addresses – missed deadlines turn a defensible claim into a default judgment.
Managing deadlines and incoming mail in litigation
- Authority / court
- Employment Tribunal
- Area of law
- Whistleblower protection · Retaliation against whistleblowers
- Legal basis
- Employment Rights Act 1996, s. 47B (Benachteiligung wegen geschützter Offenlegung); Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, Rule 22
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- Published
- 7 Jan 2026
Original amount 20,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 22 Oct 2025.
- Mr S Farrell v Gate Gourmet: 2401441/2024 Court decision
- Mr S Farrell v Gate Gourmet: 2401441/2024 – Urteil (PDF) Court decision
- Mr S Farrell v Gate Gourmet: 2401441/2024 – Judgment (Rule 22), 22.10.2025 Court decision
- Mr S Farrell v Gate Gourmet: 2401441/2024 – Reconsideration Court decision
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
24 Jul 2025 Slovenský pozemkový fondSlovak Land Fund: 6,000 EUR for late examination of a whistleblower report €6,000
The state land fund examined a report from September 2022 only after 128 days and, until November 2024, did not sufficiently inform employees about the reporting procedure, protection options and the responsible person. The Úrad na ochranu oznamovateľov (Slovak Whistleblower Protection Office) imposed 6,000 EUR.
Whistleblower reports are subject to statutory examination deadlines – anyone who misses them and does not publicise the procedure will be sanctioned.
Deadlines and transparency in the internal reporting system
- Authority / court
- Úrad na ochranu oznamovateľov (Slowakei)
- Area of law
- Whistleblower protection · Missing or inadequate reporting channel
- Legal basis
- § 10 Abs. 5 und 8, § 19 Gesetz Nr. 54/2019 über den Schutz von Hinweisgebern (UOO-277/2025)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Public sector
- Culpability
- negligent
- Rozhodnutie ÚOO z 24. 7. 2025, UOO-277/2025 (Slovenský pozemkový fond) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
16 Jun 2025 Ústredie práce, sociálnych vecí a rodinyCentral Office ÚPSVaR: 5,000 EUR – reporting office for children’s homes not operated €5,000
For months, the central authority failed to perform the tasks of the reporting office for three centres for children and families under its authority and did not make the responsible person known to employees. The Úrad na ochranu oznamovateľov (Slovak Whistleblower Protection Office) imposed 5,000 EUR; the appeal decision of 12 September 2025 reworded the operative part but left the fine at 5,000 EUR.
Anyone running the reporting office for subordinate units must also make it visible there and handle reports from those units.
- Authority / court
- Úrad na ochranu oznamovateľov (Slowakisches Amt für Hinweisgeberschutz)
- Area of law
- Whistleblower protection · Missing or inadequate reporting channel
- Legal basis
- Zákon č. 54/2019 Z. z. o ochrane oznamovateľov protispoločenskej činnosti, § 10 Abs. 3 und 5, § 19 Abs. 3
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Public sector
- ÚOO, Rozhodnutie vom 16.06.2025 (UOO-104/2025), ÚPSVaR Decision of an authority
- ÚOO, Berufungsentscheidung vom 12.09.2025 Decision of an authority
- Úrad na ochranu oznamovateľov: Rozhodnutia úradu (Liste der Entscheidungen) Official register or notice
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
9 Apr 2025 Slovenské národné múzeumSlovak National Museum: 7,000 EUR – employees not informed about reporting system €7,000
The museum published no information on the protection options or on the external reporting channel and could not prove that employees were familiar with the internal reporting rules – there were no signature lists and no proof of intranet access. The Úrad na ochranu oznamovateľov (Slovak Whistleblower Protection Office) imposed 7,000 EUR.
Informing employees about the reporting system must be documented – without proof, it is deemed not to have taken place.
Informing employees about internal and external reporting channels
Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.
- Authority / court
- Úrad na ochranu oznamovateľov (Slowakisches Amt für Hinweisgeberschutz)
- Area of law
- Whistleblower protection · Missing or inadequate reporting channel
- Legal basis
- Zákon č. 54/2019 Z. z. o ochrane oznamovateľov protispoločenskej činnosti, § 10 Abs. 5, § 19 Abs. 3
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Public sector
- ÚOO, Rozhodnutie vom 09.04.2025 (UOO-195/2025), Slovenské národné múzeum Decision of an authority
- Úrad na ochranu oznamovateľov: Rozhodnutia úradu (Liste der Entscheidungen) Official register or notice
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
21 Mar 2025 Východoslovenská vodárenská spoločnosť, a.s.East Slovak water company: 2,000 EUR for missing information on external reporting channels €2,000
The Úrad na ochranu oznamovateľov (Slovak Whistleblower Protection Office) initially imposed 10,000 EUR because the water utility’s policy named an e-mail address that had been deactivated since October 2022 as a reporting channel available around the clock and because employees were not informed comprehensibly about external reporting channels. On appeal, the head of the authority dropped the e-mail allegation for procedural reasons, set aside the part concerning the failure to acknowledge a report and set the fine at 2,000 EUR solely for the missing information on reporting channels to the competent authorities (September 2023 to September 2024).
Test reporting channels regularly: an undeliverable whistleblower address is as good as none at all.
Functioning internal reporting channels for whistleblowers
- Authority / court
- Úrad na ochranu oznamovateľov (Slowakei)
- Area of law
- Whistleblower protection · Missing or inadequate reporting channel
- Legal basis
- § 10 Abs. 5, § 19 Abs. 3 Gesetz Nr. 54/2019 über den Schutz von Hinweisgebern
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- reduced
- Sector
- Energy and utilities
- Culpability
- negligent
- Rozhodnutie predsedníčky ÚOO z 21. 3. 2025, UOO-272/2025 (Východoslovenská vodárenská spoločnosť) Decision of an authority
- Rozhodnutie ÚOO z 11. 2. 2025, UOO-19/2025 Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
14 Feb 2025 Obec SološnicaMunicipality of Sološnica: 200 EUR – contradictory reporting rules and missing information on protection €200
The municipality did not publish any information on the protection available to whistleblowers and at times had two valid, contradictory sets of rules on the internal reporting procedure online without stating which applied. The Office imposed a fine of 200 EUR.
Reporting rules must be unambiguous and up to date – remove outdated versions from the internet.
- Authority / court
- Úrad na ochranu oznamovateľov (Slowakisches Amt für Hinweisgeberschutz)
- Area of law
- Whistleblower protection · Missing or inadequate reporting channel
- Legal basis
- Zákon č. 54/2019 Z. z. o ochrane oznamovateľov protispoločenskej činnosti, § 10 Abs. 5, § 19 Abs. 2
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Public sector
- ÚOO, Rozhodnutie vom 14.02.2025 (UOO-178/2025), Obec Sološnica Decision of an authority
- Úrad na ochranu oznamovateľov: Rozhodnutia úradu (Liste der Entscheidungen) Official register or notice
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
11 Nov 2024 Správa účelových zariadeníState body SÚZ: 2,000 EUR – no reporting office of its own, channels not published €2,000
Instead of designating its own responsible person, the body subordinate to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with at least 50 employees, had named the ministry’s secretary general and had not published the reporting channels in a way accessible to all employees. The Office imposed 2,000 EUR.
Every obliged organisation needs its own reporting office that is known internally – the responsibility of the parent body is not sufficient.
- Authority / court
- Úrad na ochranu oznamovateľov (Slowakisches Amt für Hinweisgeberschutz)
- Area of law
- Whistleblower protection · Missing or inadequate reporting channel
- Legal basis
- Zákon č. 54/2019 Z. z. o ochrane oznamovateľov protispoločenskej činnosti, § 10 Abs. 1 und 5, § 19 Abs. 2
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Public sector
- ÚOO, Rozhodnutie vom 11.11.2024 (UOO-404/2024), Správa účelových zariadení Decision of an authority
- Úrad na ochranu oznamovateľov: Rozhodnutia úradu (Liste der Entscheidungen) Official register or notice
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
26 Sep 2024 GQG Partners LLCSEC: GQG Partners pays 500,000 US dollars over NDAs and severance agreement €448,229
The asset manager had twelve job applicants sign NDAs that prohibited voluntary reports to authorities, and, in a settlement agreement, required a former employee who had announced a report to the SEC to confirm that he had not initiated any investigation and to withdraw statements already made. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) took cooperation and remediation into account and imposed 500,000 US dollars.
Companies concluding a settlement with a whistleblower may require neither the withdrawal of nor a waiver of reports to authorities.
Handling announced reports to authorities in separation negotiations
- Authority / court
- U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
- Area of law
- Whistleblower protection · Retaliation against whistleblowers
- Legal basis
- Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 21F-17(a); Investment Advisers Act Section 203(e)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Employees
- 50 to 249
- Mitigating circumstances
- Cooperation with the SEC and prompt remedial measures
- Published
- 26 Sep 2024
Original amount 500,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 26 Sep 2024.
- In the Matter of GQG Partners LLC, Release No. 34-101200 Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
9 Sep 2024 Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc.SEC: Acadia Healthcare pays 1,386,000 US dollars over waivers of whistleblower awards €1.26m
Between July 2019 and July 2023, Acadia Healthcare had employees waive potential awards for reports to authorities in 98 employment, separation, retention and settlement agreements; in 56 further separation and settlement agreements, they had to waive complaints to federal authorities. As part of a sweep against seven listed companies, Acadia paid 1,386,000 US dollars to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); the contract templates were amended.
Separation and employment agreements must restrict neither reports to authorities nor the entitlement to whistleblower awards.
Whistleblower protection in contract templates (HR/Legal)
- Authority / court
- U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
- Area of law
- Whistleblower protection · Retaliation against whistleblowers
- Legal basis
- Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 21F-17(a)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Healthcare
- Mitigating circumstances
- Partial amendment of the templates even before contact by the SEC, information provided to those affected, and cooperation
- Published
- 9 Sep 2024
Original amount 1,386,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Sep 2024.
- SEC Charges Seven Public Companies with Violations of Whistleblower Protection Rule Press release of an authority
- In the Matter of Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., Release No. 34-100970 Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
9 Sep 2024 AppFolio, Inc.SEC: AppFolio pays 692,250 US dollars over waivers of whistleblower awards €626,868
The provider of property management software had employees waive potential awards for reports to authorities in two employment agreements and one settlement agreement; 68 consulting agreements (January 2020 to October 2023) prohibited voluntary disclosures to authorities. As part of a sweep against seven listed companies, AppFolio paid 692,250 US dollars to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); the contract templates were amended.
Separation and employment agreements must restrict neither reports to authorities nor the entitlement to whistleblower awards.
Whistleblower protection in contract templates (HR/Legal)
- Authority / court
- U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
- Area of law
- Whistleblower protection · Retaliation against whistleblowers
- Legal basis
- Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 21F-17(a)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Telecoms, IT and software
- Mitigating circumstances
- Amendment of the templates after contact by the SEC, information provided to those affected, and cooperation
- Published
- 9 Sep 2024
Original amount 692,250 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Sep 2024.
- SEC Charges Seven Public Companies with Violations of Whistleblower Protection Rule Press release of an authority
- In the Matter of AppFolio, Inc., Release No. 34-100971 Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
9 Sep 2024 TransUnionSEC: TransUnion pays 312,000 US dollars over waivers of whistleblower awards €282,532
Between May 2019 and September 2023, TransUnion had senior employees waive potential awards for reports to authorities in 29 severance, separation and incentive agreements; three consulting agreements prohibited voluntary disclosures to authorities. As part of a sweep against seven listed companies, TransUnion paid 312,000 US dollars to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); the contract templates were amended.
Separation and employment agreements must restrict neither reports to authorities nor the entitlement to whistleblower awards.
Whistleblower protection in contract templates (HR/Legal)
- Authority / court
- U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
- Area of law
- Whistleblower protection · Retaliation against whistleblowers
- Legal basis
- Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 21F-17(a)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Mitigating circumstances
- Amendment of the templates after contact by the SEC, information provided to those affected, and cooperation
- Published
- 9 Sep 2024
Original amount 312,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Sep 2024.
- SEC Charges Seven Public Companies with Violations of Whistleblower Protection Rule Press release of an authority
- In the Matter of TransUnion, Release No. 34-100975 Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
9 Sep 2024 Smart for Life, Inc.SEC: Smart for Life pays 19,500 US dollars over waivers of whistleblower awards €17,658
The manufacturer of nutrition and wellness products had two departing employees waive potential awards for reports to authorities in separation agreements (May 2022 and June 2023). As part of a sweep against seven listed companies, Smart for Life paid 19,500 US dollars; the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) also took into account the company's strained financial situation.
Separation and employment agreements must restrict neither reports to authorities nor the entitlement to whistleblower awards.
Whistleblower protection in contract templates (HR/Legal)
- Authority / court
- U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
- Area of law
- Whistleblower protection · Retaliation against whistleblowers
- Legal basis
- Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 21F-17(a)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- Mitigating circumstances
- Amendment of the templates and information provided to those affected after contact by the SEC, cooperation and strained financial situation
- Published
- 9 Sep 2024
Original amount 19,500 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Sep 2024.
- SEC Charges Seven Public Companies with Violations of Whistleblower Protection Rule Press release of an authority
- In the Matter of Smart for Life, Inc., Release No. 34-100974 Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
4 Sep 2024 Nationwide Planning Associates, Inc.; NPA Asset Management, LLC; Blue Point Strategic Wealth Management, LLCSEC: Nationwide Planning and partners pay 240,000 US dollars over reporting prohibitions €217,195
From May 2021 to February 2024, the three New Jersey firms had eleven retail clients sign confidentiality agreements in connection with settlement payments that permitted reports to the SEC only at the SEC's initiative; in some cases, clients had to confirm that they had never contacted and would never contact authorities. Penalties imposed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC): 160,000 (NPA Asset Management), 70,000 (Nationwide Planning) and 10,000 US dollars (Blue Point).
Complaint settlements with clients must not require an assurance not to contact authorities.
Whistleblower protection in complaint and settlement processes
- Authority / court
- U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
- Area of law
- Whistleblower protection · Retaliation against whistleblowers
- Legal basis
- Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 21F-17(a)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Published
- 4 Sep 2024
Original amount 240,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 4 Sep 2024.
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
16 Jan 2024 J.P. Morgan Securities LLCSEC: J.P. Morgan Securities pays 18 million US dollars over gagging clauses in client settlements €16.5m
From March 2020 to July 2023, JPMS had hundreds of retail clients who received credits or settlement payments of more than 1,000 US dollars sign confidentiality agreements that permitted responses to SEC enquiries but prohibited voluntary contact with the SEC. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) imposed 18 million US dollars.
Confidentiality clauses with clients must not exclude voluntary reporting to supervisory authorities either.
Whistleblower protection in settlement and confidentiality agreements
- Authority / court
- U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
- Area of law
- Whistleblower protection · Retaliation against whistleblowers
- Legal basis
- Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 21F-17(a)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Published
- 16 Jan 2024
Original amount 18,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 Jan 2024.
- J.P. Morgan to Pay $18 Million for Violating Whistleblower Protection Rule Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
12 Jan 2024 Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej republikySlovak Ministry of the Environment: 7,000 EUR – reporting office existed only on paper €7,000
From February 2021 to July 2023, the ministry had designated as the office responsible for reports an ‘anti-corruption unit’ that did not even exist in the organisational structure. A report from April 2022 had still not been examined at the time of the inspection in May 2023; the ministry’s appeal was unsuccessful on 22 April 2024.
A reporting office must actually be staffed – responsibility on paper does not fulfil the statutory obligation.
- Authority / court
- Úrad na ochranu oznamovateľov (Slowakisches Amt für Hinweisgeberschutz)
- Area of law
- Whistleblower protection · Missing or inadequate reporting channel
- Legal basis
- Zákon č. 54/2019 Z. z. o ochrane oznamovateľov protispoločenskej činnosti, § 10 Abs. 1, 4, 5 und 7, § 19 Abs. 1
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Public sector
- ÚOO, Rozhodnutie vom 12.01.2024 (UOO-87/2024), Ministerstvo životného prostredia SR Decision of an authority
- ÚOO, Berufungsentscheidung vom 22.04.2024 (UOO-221/2024) Decision of an authority
- Úrad na ochranu oznamovateľov: Rozhodnutia úradu (Liste der Entscheidungen) Official register or notice
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link